Celebrating life in the Catholic Church

…and the greatest of these is love

Last weekend, my intermittently Mass-attending daughter and the man she lives with went down South to witness the civil union of two of her friends. Also present were the ex-husband and three daughters of one of the women making the civil union commitment. I was talking on Saturday to another friend of my daughter, who commented that she’d wished the happy couple ‘all the best’, but didn’t congratulate them, because she didn’t feel the situation was one for congratulations.

Here’s the thing: we are all in dissent from the Church. Some matters of dissent are obvious, but some are more subtle. Christ taught that the greatest commandment is to love. Well, sometimes I disobey this teaching because I’m weak — but sometimes I do it because I really just can’t see the point of putting so much emphasis on it, especially when people are jerks, or stupid. Sometimes I very publicly lead a lifestyle that flouts the Church’s teaching about loving our fellow man. And yet I still consider myself a faithful Catholic.

My thoughts? I think our first job is to look to our own dissent; to our own flaws and failings. If we live as well as we can, that living is, in itself, all the comment on the life style of others that we may be called upon to make. And if we’re asked for our opinion, or hold a role that requires us to give Church teachings? Then, by Gum, we’d better know what those teachings are and why. And we’d better speak with respect and love.

Like this:

Related

25 Responses

Well how does it work for a case such as this, a believing Catholic experiences a breakdown of their marriage which leads to a permanent seperation. They live alone and lonely for a good while, before meeting someone with whom they form a romantic relationship, fall in love with, and then end up living “de-facto” with, thus getting some measure of happiness back. They attend mass every week, but do not recieve communion (knowing Church teaching), they pray daily and try to lead lives of Christian charity.

Here’s what I’ve worked out after a bit of research. ‘Communion’ in this phrase is not synonymous with ‘Eucharist’.

A person is “in communion” – to a greater or lesser extent – as soon as they are baptised (and, as Chris points out below, baptism of desire counts). Doesn’t matter what church they belong to; they’re part of the Christian communion. Full communion has two signs: ecclessial and Eucharistic. Those who are in full communion with the Church are Catholics who accept the leadership of the Bishops (ecclessial communion). The sign of this ecclessial communion, and the food that keeps it strong, is the Eucharist. Not being able to receive the Eucharist (because you recognise yourself to be a state of mortal sin that you’re not willing to do anything about) doesn’t prevent you from being in full ecclessial communion with the Church.

You recognise yourself to be a state of mortal sin that you’re not willing to do anything about doesn’t prevent you from being in full ecclessial communion with the Church.

I think that being in a state of mortal sin does damage ecclessial communion. That’s one reason for the communal rite II of reconciliation, to recognise that sin also has a communal dimension.

However, I am very far from convinced that every divorced and remarried Catholic is in a state of mortal sin simply for remarrying. Mortal sin would require the couple think that what they are doing is wrong. Many don’t.

Thanks for that clarification, Chris. So they are in communion, but that communion has suffered a greater or lesser degree of damage. Is that your understanding?

I agree that many remarried people don’t regard themselves as being in a state of mortal sin. By definition, such people are not in the group that don’t receive the Eucharist because they believe they are in a state of mortal sin.

I am somewhat amused that Jerry, of all people, is keen to draw lines in the sand about who is “in” or “out” (itself an interesting term to pick in terms of the issue which began this post !) 🙂

Perhaps it’s better to consider communion as something of a sliding scale. If you are baptised, then you are “in” as far as being a Catholic is concerned. We’re all “out” to some extent by our sins.

In Jerry’s case it is impossible to judge on the facts he stated. There is no sin in living together. There is in sex outside marriage, but merely living together does not establish that. It’s possible that the first marriage was invalid and might be granted an anullment. The second marriage, although illicit in terms of canon law, might possibly be sacramentally valid and hence real.

The correct canonical thing to do would be to seek an anullment and then remarry in the Church. But that will cost some money, time, and effort and may not be granted. The couple are free to live together continently (as “brother and sister”) and receive the sacraments. Cardinal Ratzinger has written favourably on the role of the internal forum and personal conscience in cases where the couple genuinely believe their first marriage(s) to have been invalid.

It’s certainly the sort of the thing the couple would do well to discuss with a sympathetic priest, deacon, or canon lawyer.

In his 1994 letter as head of the CDF, he says: “The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.” and “The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.

8. It is certainly true that a judgment about one’s own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple. Thus the judgment of conscience of one’s own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church’s mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament.” [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html]

In Jerry’s case it is impossible to judge on the facts he stated. There is no sin in living together. There is in sex outside marriage, but merely living together does not establish that. It’s possible that the first marriage was invalid and might be granted an anullment. The second marriage, although illicit in terms of canon law, might possibly be sacramentally valid and hence real.

There are no “facts”. For this hypothetical we will say that the first marriage was entirely valid, and the second is a de-facto relationship which is consummated. I’m not keen to “draw lines” I’m curious as to how people would regard such a case.

I regard it as not being my business, Jerry. It is, of course, the couple’s business, and – in the circumstances you describe – the business of the couple’s confessor. But it isn’t mine. I have my own struggles to contend with, and am grateful for the prayer:

Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. But only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.

I would be an arrant hypocrite if I presumed to sit in judgement on someone else’s sin when I have so many of my own. That doesn’t mean I can’t (and haven’t) talked to family and friends about the Catholic ideal and the reasons for it.

This question didn’t quite go how I meant it to. I was thinking about the question of how membership of the Church is best understood. But I didn’t really qualify my comment with what line of thought I was following. — Having read a bit on Karl Rahner and “anonymous Christians”, I was musing about the notion of a Catholic who embraces the Church, but pushes it away at the same time as it were. —– The point of my example was to provide an example of someone who has not rejected the Church, but lives with a persistent and conscious impairment of their Communion with the Church.
I was thinking about questions such as, when does persisting in impaired communion become rejection?
And, when does a legitimate confidence in God become an illegitimate attempt to bypass the Church and say “God knows I mean well, whatever the rules say”?

The whole hypothetical was just supposed to be a springboard. My fail. Sorry

I think it may be impossible for anyone but God to know whether – at any one point in time – a person is drawing closer to, or drawing further away from, the Church. And, for that matter, whether a person is participating in a movement that will renew the Church, or one that will impair it.

I guess the bottom line is that each person has an obligation to inform their conscience, and to obey the Church in so far as they can without going against their informed conscience. Catholicism, at its best, is a religion for grown ups.

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

“And yet behold, the hand of the one who is to betray me is with me on the table; for the Son of Man indeed goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed.” And they began to debate among themselves who among them would do such a deed.

Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.

It’s always been a paschal meal of sinners, betrayers, and power seekers, right from the get go.

The first time, when she described her circumstances, the priest told her to get her life in order and then come back.

The second time (a year later and at a different parish), when she described her circumstances, the priest praised her for coming back to the Mass and told her that he was there to talk to at any time, and that he would offer whatever help she needed to get her life in order.

The Archdiocese of Washington apologised for that incident in which an unwell priest made a poor spur of the moment decision to deny Holy Communion against the clear requirements of Canon Law (can 915).

I think it may be impossible for anyone but God to know whether – at any one point in time – a person is drawing closer to, or drawing further away from, the Church

Well I suppose the Church has to maintain its integrity in this world, and therefore needs to have criteria with respect to concrete actions in order to define visible communion. But assumedly God who has no such limitations and can search hearts etc, may recognise a truer and different configuration. — With what one might imagine would be, in the end, surprising inclusions and omissions. If everyones actions and thoughts etc, reveal the tip of an iceberg, as you’ve said, then God’s view must be rather different.

The Catholic Hope is that everyone will one day be found in the Church. If everyone is finally saved then that follows.

Helpful here are the old doctrine of baptism of implicit desire, what Vatican II said about the possibility of salvation for those outside the visible boundaries of the Church, and various helpful statements from Bishop’s conferences encouraging those who struggle with difficult pastoral situations eg the Canadian Bishops Winnipeg statement and the USCCB’s statement on the possibilities of loyal dissent following Humanae Vitae.

The orientation of the Church is to reach out and help all those who are struggling be it materially, health problems, or moral/doctrinal difficulties.

A further thought on all this. Not recieving communion can perhaps sometimes be a sign of closer union with the church. — Compare a “cultural Catholic” who trundles up the aisle every sunday because that’s simply what you do at mass, with someone who believes it is objectively inappropriate for them to recieve, and so stays in their pew. It’s the non-communicant in such a case that is treating the sacrament as an objective reality.